41–50 of 154 posts
It's not clear from the article but animals can generally live quite a bit longer than you'd expect if they continue to grow for their entire life, which is true for some types of fish. Gunk that builds up inside or between cells gets redistributed over larger areas, as do cells that become senescent. And larger size means more space for memory T cells. Those are only some aspects of aging of course.
So, getting fatter as I get older is a good thing? /s
> Buffalofish can go decades between successful reproductions because they require very specific environmental conditions—most of which are still unknown—to procreate. That’s why the fish evolved to live so long: It’s an evolutionary adaptation to account for long periods without breeding, according to Lackmann. This reminds me of "The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant" by Nick Bostrom [1]. Senescence is engraved in our bra…
A well written fable, but its moral would not be equitable in the world of today. It's inevitable that access to "defeating the dragon" would be available to only the most affluent in society, whom have also led the most comfortable lives. There is no fairness in allowing these people to enjoy extended or indefinite lifespans whilst countless others suffer inhumane conditions only to die early.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't cancer rates tend to correlate positively with number of cells?
Not for whales so YMMV.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A well written fable, but its moral would not be equitable in the world of today. It's inevitable that access to "defeating the dragon" would be available to only the most affluent in society, whom have also led the most comfortable lives. There is no fairness in allowing these people to enjoy extended or indefinite lifespans whilst countless others suffer inhumane conditions only to die early.
This is an argument against pursuing equitability as an end in and of itself
The rising tide should raise ALL boats, otherwise inequitability will lead to social instability as seen througout human history so far.
It's all the cardio. Fish do cardio 24-7 their whole life. Therefore older=better.
Most fish (non domesticated) I've seen, tend to find places to hide while sleeping. Rocks, crevasses, in plants. Are cattle doing cardio because they're standing while sleeping? I see what you're saying, but fish don't have to do a lot to station keep.
> Buffalofish can go decades between successful reproductions because they require very specific environmental conditions—most of which are still unknown—to procreate. That’s why the fish evolved to live so long: It’s an evolutionary adaptation to account for long periods without breeding, according to Lackmann. This reminds me of "The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant" by Nick Bostrom [1]. Senescence is engraved in our bra…
A well written fable, but its moral would not be equitable in the world of today. It's inevitable that access to "defeating the dragon" would be available to only the most affluent in society, whom have also led the most comfortable lives. There is no fairness in allowing these people to enjoy extended or indefinite lifespans whilst countless others suffer inhumane conditions only to die early.
At first only rich people beneficiated from it. But thankfully today medicine advantages are better distributed. We are not equals by any means and some countries are lagging behind, but it is better.
Link to my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39080399
I have good hopes the same pattern could occur here.
> Buffalofish can go decades between successful reproductions because they require very specific environmental conditions—most of which are still unknown—to procreate. That’s why the fish evolved to live so long: It’s an evolutionary adaptation to account for long periods without breeding, according to Lackmann. This reminds me of "The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant" by Nick Bostrom [1]. Senescence is engraved in our bra…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A well written fable, but its moral would not be equitable in the world of today. It's inevitable that access to "defeating the dragon" would be available to only the most affluent in society, whom have also led the most comfortable lives. There is no fairness in allowing these people to enjoy extended or indefinite lifespans whilst countless others suffer inhumane conditions only to die early.
I think medicine gave a good hit to the dragon over the years. At first only rich people beneficiated from it. But thankfully today medicine advantages are better distributed. We are not equals by any means and some countries are lagging behind, but it is better. Link to my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39080399 I have good hopes the same pattern could occur here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think medicine gave a good hit to the dragon over the years. At first only rich people beneficiated from it. But thankfully today medicine advantages are better distributed. We are not equals by any means and some countries are lagging behind, but it is better. Link to my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39080399 I have good hopes the same pattern could occur here.
Perhaps the "rising tide" takes longer to reach some than others. I hope for a more equitable, fairer future, but it's likely my outlook is somewhat jaded.
If it is something very expensive and an overnight discovery, then it is likely that a dystopian era will occur... Just imagine some kind of tyrant (as a reference to the fable!) reigning over a country for 100+ years.
But it could also be somewhat like what happened with medicine: the sum of smaller improvements, some more expensive than others, years after years.